Olaf Storbeck reported that 70 economists voiced support for the digital euro (“Digital euro vital to avoid dependency on US, says economists”, Report, January 11). A closer look suggests their argument reflects a misunderstanding of both central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and economic history.

The economists claim that a CBDC, like the digital euro, would be “an essential safeguard of European sovereignty, stability, and resilience”. But just look at the international experience. Where has this claim been true in practice? Certainly not in The Bahamas or Jamaica, where some of the longest-standing CBDCs have existed.

Even within Europe, the economists appear to misunderstand economic history. Warning of the dominance of non-European financial institutions, the economists claim that government intervention is the only defense. Yet such interventions are partly why European businesses have struggled to gain ground.

Rather than being free to serve customers, firms must navigate a maze of red tape: customer-surveillance mandates, extensive reporting rules, and regulatory fragmentation. Making matters worse, price controls—such as caps on interchange fees—prevent new entrants from generating the revenue needed to manage these compliance burdens. It’s not a market failure if the source of the issue is government intervention.

If the economists are right about one thing, it’s that the European Parliament should be careful about whose advice it follows.